Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

RU-486 Abortion Pill Manufactured by Same Company as Nazi Zyklon-B Gas

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    WakeUp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,823 ✭✭✭WakeUp


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's not what I'm saying at all. Nor do I accept that they could target and hit buildings right next to it and yet miss the IG Faben building intentionally.
    They were simply not accurate enough to target specific buildings. Therefore they had to carpet bomb the area to hit a target. If they were targeting buildings right next to the IG Faben building they would have had to carpet bomb the area. This means the IG Faben building would have been damaged.

    I am arguing that they did not target either the building or the area around it.
    But not because of the Rothschilds.

    Yeah I know all that there is no need to keep repeating yourself, but I asked you if you thought it was possible that they missed for whatever reason -ditto- on purpose? And you said yes its “possible but unlikely” unless you want to contradict yourself again be my guest if you do, lets leave that at that Father Doogle on the milk float springs to mind, lets move on.


    King Mob wrote: »
    You're joking right?
    You realise something that is unlikely to happen is, by the definitions you gave, is possible but improbable.
    And things can be both possible and improbable.

    No I wsnt joking does it sound funny glad you find it amusing even if your sense of humour is slightly warped in my humble opinion. What your saying there is not accurate in the context of the original question I asked you, technically its nonsense no offence.

    King Mob wrote: »
    No I can't say with 100% certainty that the Rothschilds weren't involved.
    Nor can I (or you for that matter) say with 100% certainty fairies didn't stop the bombs from damaging the building.

    But there is exactly as much evidence to support the fairy hypothesis as there is for the Rothschild one: none.

    So why should anyone believe the Rothschilds were involved when there is no evidence to support that they were?

    That’s all I wanted to hear “no I cant say for 100% certainty that the Rothschilds were not involved”, nice one. People can believe whatever they want for whatever reason its not for me to tell somebody that or how to think, you’re making the statements Im asking you to back them up which Im entitled to do. I haven’t made any statements.


    King Mob wrote: »
    If you actually read any of my responses you'd see when I said “this however is not the case” I was referring to Sofa King Good argument that the Rothschilds involvement was the only explanation.
    This is not the only explanation, I have offered several other ones.

    And I'd like to note for all this arguing about semantics, not one person has offered a scrap of evidence to support the idea that the Rothschilds saved this building.

    How do you know I didn’t read your statements I understood perfectly what you were on about you must be consulting your tea leaves again Ill have a cup if your making one. I don’t care how many reasons you give or why you give them, I was asking how do you know the explanation given was not the case or the only reason if you want to put it like it that. Let me help you out with that you seem to be struggling, the answer is you don’t if you say anything different your being bias to your own opinion some might say irrational. Also, I have taken note of your note its noted.

    [font=&quot]I rest my case, watching you go round in circles is making me dizzy[/font]


  • Options
    #93
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    WakeUp wrote: »
    Yeah I know all that there is no need to keep repeating yourself, but I asked you if you thought it was possible that they missed for whatever reason -ditto- on purpose? And you said yes its “possible but unlikely” unless you want to contradict yourself again be my guest if you do, lets leave that at that Father Doogle on the milk float springs to mind, lets move on.
    You seem to be completely missing my point.
    It's possible but unlikely a full formed elephant would spontaneously pop into existence.
    My point is the more likely explanation is that they didn't target the IG Faban building or the area around it at all.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    No I wsnt joking does it sound funny glad you find it amusing even if your sense of humour is slightly warped in my humble opinion. What your saying there is not accurate in the context of the original question I asked you, technically its nonsense no offence.
    How exactly? Was I only allowed answer "yes" or "no" even if that wasn't what I was arguing at all?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    That’s all I wanted to hear “no I cant say for 100% certainty that the Rothschilds were not involved”, nice one. People can believe whatever they want for whatever reason its not for me to tell somebody that or how to think, you’re making the statements Im asking you to back them up which Im entitled to do. I haven’t made any statements.
    Ah so you're ignoring the rest of that point then? The reason I believe thing is because they are supported by evidence. There is no evidence to indicate that the Rothschilds where involved.

    WakeUp wrote: »
    How do you know I didn’t read your statements I understood perfectly what you were on about you must be consulting your tea leaves again Ill have a cup if your making one. I don’t care how many reasons you give or why you give them, I was asking how do you know the explanation given was not the case or the only reason if you want to put it like it that. Let me help you out with that you seem to be struggling, the answer is you don’t if you say anything different your being bias to your own opinion some might say irrational. Also, I have taken note of your note its noted.
    Because there was no evidence to support it. Is it my bias that no one on this thread has offered any evidence to support this idea?

    But because I can't know for certain that's why I've been asking for evidence the entire thread. But funnily enough I have never gotten any.

    Can you supply any evidence?
    WakeUp wrote: »
    [font=&quot]I rest my case, watching you go round in circles is making me dizzy[/font]
    So let's get this straight your case is: "You can't say for certain they weren't involved therefore they were."
    Not a very good argument.

    Can you say with 100% certainty fairies didn't get involved?
    If not, by your argument they were.


  • Options
    #94
    phantom_lord
    Registered Users Posts: 10,894 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    Run_to_da_hills wrote: »
    RU486. Non-surgical abortions using RU486 are performed in the first 63 days of the first trimester.1 Roussel Uclaf, the French pharmaceutical subsidiary of Hoechst AG is the manufacturer of RU 486.

    During WWII, Nazi Germany used gas chambers to kill millions of Jews. The gas that was used was called Zyklon-B. Zyklon-B was made by IG Farben.

    After the war, IG Farben changed its name to Hoechst AG. So the same company that brought you the gas chambers of the WWII holocaust now brings you the "abortion pill" !! :eek:

    However, a Nazi by another name is still the same and, today, a subsidiary company of Hoechst AG is the developer and main producer of RU-486, the so-called “abortion pill.” The ghost of IG Farben is still haunting us by allowing killers to again distance themselves from their deeds. Using chemicals to kill has become big business for pharmaceutical companies both during the Nazi holocaust and during the abortion holocaust.


    http://www.cephas-library.com/health/health_progesterone_abortions.html

    what's the problem? :confused:


  • Options
    #95
    RoundTower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭RoundTower


    yet more useful technology to thank the Nazis for! Even their harshest detractors have to admit they did a lot of good.


  • Options
    #96
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    King Mob wrote: »
    When you described the buildings escape as miraculous and ascribed it to the building alleged Rothschild connection.
    You dismiss other possibilities as impossible but with no good reasoning or evidence to back that up.

    Care to express the other possibilities you think might have let this building survive?


    That is the good thing about studying CT's - even if you are wrong it's still interesting to find out. It's not like I act on any of these musings, never even boycotted anything in my life.

    I have done nothing more than you have. In fact you even dismissed the Rothschild Connection immediately despite knowing feck all about it. The POW Camp and the other possibilites that came to light for you during the course of the "discussion".

    To make it clearer I am not stating that the building survived without question due to any Rothschild connection nor have I stated that "your" senarios are impossible nor many others not thought of. What I have done is put the Rothschild connection forward for discussion as a CT in a CT forum as true or not I cannot say either way if it is true or not but a discussion on the topic would interest me personally. And by discussion I do not mean constantly defending an opinion I mean reasonable, civil, constructive discussion.

    Constant baiting constantly leads to the false impression that I hold stronger CT views that I actuality due to the need for their constant defence of any opinions that go against the grain, regardless of how little possibility of being in reality I give them myself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    That is the good thing about studying CT's - even if you are wrong it's still interesting to find out. It's not like I act on any of these musings, never even boycotted anything in my life.

    I have done nothing more than you have. In fact you even dismissed the Rothschild Connection immediately despite knowing feck all about it. The POW Camp and the other possibilites that came to light for you during the course of the "discussion".

    To make it clearer I am not stating that the building survived without question due to any Rothschild connection nor have I stated that "your" senarios are impossible nor many others not thought of. What I have done is put the Rothschild connection forward for discussion as a CT in a CT forum as true or not I cannot say either way if it is true or not but a discussion on the topic would interest me personally. And by discussion I do not mean constantly defending an opinion I mean reasonable, civil, constructive discussion.

    Constant baiting constantly leads to the false impression that I hold stronger CT views that I actuality due to the need for their constant defence of any opinions that go against the grain, regardless of how little possibility of being in reality I give them myself.
    And by dismissed the Rothschild connection you mean ask for evidence to support it?
    Cause that's kinda what I did?

    So then what reason and/or evidence do you have that the Rothschilds where involved? Cause you haven't really done either.


  • Options
    #98
    Sofa_King Good
    Closed Accounts Posts: 857 ✭✭✭Sofa_King Good


    This was in your first repsonse to the OP
    King Mob wrote: »
    Oh for **** sake, that is ridiculous.

    This was in your immediate response to me
    King Mob wrote: »
    Did they have a giant sign on the roofs? Did it glow in the dark?
    Another ridiculous claim.

    Your setting the tone for the proceeding conversation yourself straight away.


  • Options
    #99
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    This was in your first repsonse to the OP
    And?
    Rtdh was making a ridiculous comparison.
    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    This was in your immediate response to me
    Because you where claiming the they where accurate enough able to hit buildings across the road to the IG Faban building but still leave it untouched.
    Which is ridiculous.
    Sofa_King Good wrote: »
    Your setting the tone for the proceeding conversation yourself straight away.
    Where-in I asked repeatedly for solid verifiable evidence to support your theory?

    Why didn't just shut me up by providing me with evidence?
    Why don't you do so now?


Advertisement